I agree with most of what Christian Fundamentalism accepts–the virgin birth of Christ, the incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead, the resurrection and judgment of all people at Christ‘s second coming. I am pro-life on the abortion issue (even in cases of rape or incest the act is objectively morally wrong). I believe that premarital sex and any kind of homosexual activity is sinful. It would seem that Fundamentalists should be blood brothers. Yet some of my posts have been rather “outspoken” against Fundamentalism, to the point that I offended some old friends of mine. I owe them–and anyone who reads this blog–an explanation.

It is true that I largely agree with Fundamentalist positions. I think it is far better to be part of most Fundamentalist Christian Churches than to be part of a liberal Protestant body such as the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). However, Fundamentalism harms Christianity because the unfounded positions of many Fundamentalists, the rabid legalism and Puritanism of some Fundamentalist groups, and the extreme ignorance of some Fundamentalist Christians drive people away from the Gospel of Christ.

One example is the Fundamentalist belief in the strict inerrancy of Scripture, even in historical and scientific matters. All I would have to do to discount that view is to have students read two different Gospel accounts of the Limited Commission, one in which Christ exhorts His disciples to take a staff, and the other in which he exhorts them to take no staff. I could also point out that Genesis 1-11 is modified from earlier Babylonian accounts of the creation and flood and reflects the ancient world view of a flat earth, a solid firmanent in the sky with holes for the sun, moon, and stars, and an underworld wherein dwell the shades of the dead. The Bible is not absent of theological error–no Christian should emulate the attitude of the psalmist in Psalm 137, who says, “Happy is he who takes your little ones [i.e., babies and children] and dashes them against the rock.” Holy Scripture is inerrant in all matters necessary to our salvation–but there is no theological requirement for a stronger doctrine of inerrancy.

Young-earth creationism is a view held by some Fundamentalists–the view that the earth is several thousand years old and the Great Flood made most of the fossils and geological formations we see today. As I have noted before in this blog, this position does not fit the facts, such as the difference between flood-based deposits of sediment and sediment laid out over a long period of time. Although there are concerns with how some scientists interpret evolution, evolution as such is not contrary to Christian faith. A young person who is brought up on young earth creationism as the only proper way to interpret Genesis may lose his faith when confronted with the actual evidence.

Puritanism is a part of some Fundamentalist groups. Some forbid dancing, not realizing that there is a difference between the lewd, simulated sex in dance today and the traditional forms of dancing. The same groups allow kissing but not “necking” or “petting,” apparently oblivious to how much a kiss can turn on people. Where I went to school, dancing was banned, so many students engaged in horizontal “dancing” in the dorms. Such hypocrisy is inevitably the result of legalistic moralizing.

Forbidding consumption of alcohol ignores the fact that Jesus drank wine (no, dear Fundys, it was not grape juice–it was wine and one could get drunk on it) and that drinking in moderation is not unhealthy. Some people should not drink alcoholic beverages, not because it is wrong in itself, but because they have a propensity not to stop drinking once they start. For others, however, there is nothing wrong with moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages.

A more serious problem is the acceptance of Dispensational Premillenialism by many Fundamentalists. This had led Christian Fundamentalists to support Israel blindly and to be warmongers, especially if the war involves fighting nations they perceive to be a threat to Israel. Some of the most rabid voices hankering for war with Iran have been from Christian Fundamentalists. They ignore the symbolic nature of the 1000-year reign (10x10x10, a perfect number symbolizing the fullness of time) of Christ, and locate that reign in a literal Jerusalem. Such a view of God’s kingdom was rejected by Jesus Himself (“my kingdom is not of this world). It ignores the fact that the Book of Revelation was written to be understood by its original readers, who would have known that the opponent of God in that book is the Roman Empire that was persecuting Christians.

Fundamentalists are often consumed with fascination about Satan, demons, and hell, to the point that every teenager wearing a trench coat and listening to heavy metal music is a violent threat to others. Fundys fear difference of any kind instead of using practical reason to determine which differences are worthy of negative judgment and which ones are not. The Robin Hood Hills murder suspects who were wrongfully convicted (the “West Memphis Three“) of murdering young cub scouts were convicted by ignorant Fundamentalists who saw Satanism everywhere. Damien Echols had a name that reminded them of the movie, “The Omen,’ and Fundys were too stupid to realize that Echols was referring to Father Damien when he changed his name. His use of the name was to honor the great priest who labored among lepers and eventually died of the disease himself. I listen to heavy metal music (and to classical, jazz, bluegrass, anything but rap, hip-hop, and most contemporary country). I enjoy Iron Maiden, Pantera, Rob Zombie, Anthrax, Zao, and Yog Suggoth. Does that make me a Satanist? Some Fundys would think so–and they would be dead wrong. It is sad that Echols states in his autobiography that the behavior of Christian Fundamentalists in getting him wrongly convicted turned him against Christianity–even so, he has a rosary and engages in some Christian spiritual disciplines. How many people who otherwise would have become active, loving, and orthodox Christians have been driven off by the extremism of Fundamentalism? God only knows, but those guilty of driving others away from the faith will answer for it.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Reblogged this on Tnmusicman's Blog and commented:
Nail on the head. A lot of Christians do get caught up in legalism –we’re all guilty of it at some point but to recognize it and correct it takes a growth in spiritual awareness, i believe. An awareness I’m regrettably still working on.

Brother, I sincerely ask you this because I do not know. Please excuse my ignorance on this but you stated ” Holy Scripture is inerrant in all matters necessary to our salvation–but there is no theological requirement for a stronger doctrine of inerrancy.”

In talking to atheists I have learned to think like they do (to a degree) and if I were to tell someone the above quote I think the first thing they would ask me is ” how do you know the bible to be inerrant in matters of salvation but not everything else”? Granted, there are some things that would be obvious but the atheist might say “how can you believe ANY of the Word”?

I guess my point is i understand that some folks feel the bible is without error but I don’t know how to know what is supposed to be right and what’s wrong. If the resurrection of Christ is called into question then how could we say that Christianity is true? Moreover, if the flood is untrue how can ANY of the bible be believed (especially coming from a non-believer perspective)??
Any help here would be appreciated . Thank you!

I appreciate your comment. I am in the Catholic tradition, though of an Anglican bent–I still believe in the Anglican triad of authority of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Church gave us the Bible, not vice-versa, and despite the politics among the Fathers, Catholics believe that God, through Holy Tradition and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, set forth through the Creeds the essential and infallible teachings of Christianity. If I were a Protestant, I would feel exactly as you do–and I would probably still be agnostic, as I was for a while after seminary. Given that the Church says the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of all people at the end of time, is literally true, I must accept those doctrines. Richard Swinburne has done some excellent work in this area.

So, would I be accurate in saying (and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth but I want to make sure I understand) that the reason you believe the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of all people at the end of time is because the church has declared it true but the other parts of the bible (global flood,Genesis account of creation,ect…) you look at as being metaphorical ?
I ask because I’ve had very little exposure to the Anglican faith except a very VERY bad negative repulsive person that I find very hard to be forgiving of (though I have forgiven him because I’m supposed to) and he ” claimed ” to be in the COE,which I have no idea about other than what this person I’m referring to has told me. He stated his faith was Anglican but I’m unsure of how close to the Anglican faith your faith would be.

As I said please forgive my Ignorance on the various faiths and their respective beliefs but its hard to keep it all straight in my mind. At this point I’m trying to concentrate on my chosen faith (which can be very difficult when you have a learning disability) but I had to ask you my original question for clarification. I appreciate you answering so quickly.

I am in the Anglican Catholic Church, which left the Episcopal Church after the 1976 General Convention approved the ordination of women to Holy Orders. We do not have intercommunion with the Church of England, nor are we in communion with the Episcopal Church USA. We are in intercommunion with small groups such as the Diocese of Christ the King and the United Episcopal Church. Our website is http://www.anglicancatholic.org.

The Church is neutral on issues such as the Great Flood’s historicity, so one is free to take the story as literally true or as true in terms of the spiritual lessons it teaches. Yes, it is by the Church’s authority over the ages that I accept the standard doctrines of the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as being literally true.

John BurnsJan 05, 2013 @ 19:35:21

How different all this is from the world of Dominican Germany in the 13th and 14th centuries. The period of Eckhart, Suso and Toller. This is “religion” in the sense of dogma and conflict. I wonder if it is worth even knowing much about, that is, what this group believes or that group, whether Episcopalians or Evangelicals will get the best seats in Heaven or even make it there.
Isn’t all this partly why people become agnostic or atheistical? It seems infinitely boring and just the sort of thing to put people to sleep.
Christianity in America is pretty much like everything else–in a state of degeneration. The worst lead and the best hide out.

On a more sympathetic note I can see that someone who grew up in an atmosphere where dancing was forbidden has for me a pretty strange past to deal with. The older I get the more I appreciate how moderate and healthy central Nebraska was in the 1940’s and 1950’s. It occurs to me that there are places and times that achieve a very good balance, and that to be born then and there is great good fortune. I suppose these rigid belief systems grow out of a great desire for security. If you were to use the notion of reincarnation without necessarily adopted it or even believing it to be the case, it becomes a powerful tool for understanding people. You simply imagine the sort of past lives that they may have had . . . For example, the Fundamentalists may have been persecuted and involved in terrible wars like the 30 Year War. They get reborn and all these horrible memories are just out of sight but plenty influential and cause them to desire war and revenge. Aren’t we after all motivated by desire, and isn’t the spring of desire rather hidden and secret?

The great danger of any dogma is that it will block the mind from finding the truth. The mind hardens up like concrete and can no longer take in much unless it meets some thought structures which may be completely mistaken and based on corrupted information.

USURY: Until the early Renaisance usury was considered a very serious mortal sin. Condemned not only in the Bible but by Classical culture as well. And then it got redefined as immodeate interest. Presumably other dogmas could undergo changes of that sort. Adultery? Homosexuality? My impression is that usury was considered to be as bad as homosexuality or perhaps even worse. Divorce certainly. Abortion? It does seem like Christians sort of adopt situational ethics subconsciously when it suits their purposes. How many good Christians turn down interest on money loaned? Why would Aristotle and Aquinas, Cicero and Cato and others have condemned something that today seems so very reasonable? My guess is that in a few hundred years many sins will have vanished the way usury as a sin did. Today’s serious sin will be tomorrow’s reasonable behavior. Otherwise, how explain a sin so serious as usury just completely vanishing?
My guess is that no Christian can explain this in a felicitious manner.

What is the position of the Anglican Church regarding war in general, and the current and recent wars initiated by the USA and NATO. It seems that once again the Church is far more interested in the sexual area (homosexuality, abortion, etc.) than in things that touch money power like usury, war which is a big money makers, etc.
The sex area is easy whereas the money area is dangerous. Fundamentalists are actually not very fundamental!

The ACC supports the just war theory that stems from Augustine and Aquinas. In the First Gulf War, unfortunately, the bishops passed a resolution supporting the war–even though the vote was not unanimous, I found that decision appalling. The bishops did it because many military personnel are members of the ACC–but supporting them does not mean supporting a war. The ACC took no official position concerning the recent wars. Most ACC members and clergy are hawkish–I have had some interesting “discussions” with some of them.

As with all Catholic bodies, the ACC opposes abortion and homosexual practice, and I agree with that teaching. However, the hawkishness of many laity and clergy in the ACC disturbs me.

And usury as defined for about 1500 years by the Church and considered a serious mortal sin?

John BurnsJan 12, 2013 @ 03:08:56

More detail– in the past you have made references to the Councils and the Church in general as an authority. But usury is a real problem for Christians I believe. For example: “The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury[12] (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above 1 percent per month (12.7% APR). Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.[12][13]

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[14] Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.[15] Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as “detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity.”[15]

Theological historian John Noonan argues that “the doctrine [of usury] was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.”[13]
. . .
Usury (in the original sense of any interest) was at times denounced by a number of religious leaders and philosophers in the ancient world, including
Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca,[21] Aquinas,[22] Muhammad,[23] Jesus,[24] Moses,[25] Philo[citation needed] and Gautama Buddha.[26] For example, Cato in his De Re Rustica said:

“And what do you think of usury?” — “What do you think of murder?”

Interest of any kind is forbidden in Islam. As such, specialized codes of banking have developed to cater to investors wishing to obey Qur’anic law. (See Islamic banking)” –Wikipedia
I think you can see why this is not an area of religious discussion or church news letters. My point is simply that sexual areas are much easier to handle than those involving war and money. You might say feminine as opposed to masculine regions. And quite obviously referring to Church Councils is fine when it reinforces one’s beliefs but not so good when it contradicts them. I am sure much obscure print has been used to justify the current money regime from a Christian point of view. Just as it has with respect to a “just war”. With the exception of the War of 1812 I am not sure if any war the USA has been in falls into the category of just war even loosely defined. WWI certainly not; and it led to WWII. On the whole the Church has been quite dependably supportive of European and American waring.
Conclusion: while it is easy to see why usury was condemned–it is an evil, it takes a more expert mind to see what might be wrong with homosexuality. This is not Divine irrationality but human weakness and self deception. As for abortion–this is such a complex matter that much thought, reflection, research and experience would only begin to shed real light on it. Surely there are situatons where abortion is the most compassionate action. (Unless I am mistakern usury is one of a number of sore spots that most find clever ways to avoid! discussing.)

I know usury was considered a serious sin by the Christian Church, possibly under the influence of Judaism, which only allowed usury for Gentiles, not to fellow Jews. Yet in Jesus’ Parable of the Talents, the one-talent man was condemned for not investing his money for interest. There remain a few ultra-traditionalist Catholics who oppose usury–it does lend itself to a temptation to exploit people. With the rise of capitalism and the need for a money market, the church eventually allowed usury but demanded that rates be reasonable. I do not see usury as central as sexuality, which cuts to the heart of human identity, family, and society.

So here you regard Aquinas as simply not up on his New Testament and a little off when he wrote about usury? I would enjoy hearing your refutation of his position. I assume you have one. It is also interesting how the Church fathers in these Councils were clearly missing the boat as well. Some day someone will be responding to someone about abortion or the like with some ambiguous passage from the Bible no doubt.
You might consider all the families that have been destroyed by the banking cartels who took their houses, their cars, their jobs . . . and the student loans and so on. No, money is very, very central to people’s lives; and more so now than ever. I think your position is that of the sophist. Also keep in mind that one man”s “reasonable” is another man’s nightmare.
Frankly, you can not wiggle your way out of this one. You have to simply become irrational. But it will interesting to observe!! I knew that if I waited long enough I would see this most typical move, made by almost all Christians at some point. That is the great difference between a genuine spiritual life and one based primarily on belief and dogma.

I would take care not to judge a person’s measure of devotion or spiritual life because the person accepts certain dogma. I pray, I find the mass meaningful, not just in a cognitive sense, but in an emotional and spiritual sense as well. But I will accept the teachings my church’s teaching office accepts–that is no more irrational than someone who accepts secularism as a dogma or Sankara’s version of Hinduism as a dogma. I don’t like the way the banking industry has become corrupt, but there have been many bankers who genuinely considered themselves to be doing a community service. I don’t like the notion of “buying money,” and the church traditionally has not cared for it at all–I will say this for a condemnation of usury–it would quickly dry up the war machine. It would probably dry up the rest of the economy with extensive social disorder and poverty on an unparalleled scale. On abortion: if there were some unambiguous way to show that human personhood begins after conception, and that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the Catholic Church might reconsider their position. I see no way that can be shown, and given that one should be safe in not killing a person, it is best to assume that personhood begins with conception. On the economy, the Catholic Church saw the wave of capitalism and dealt with it the best it could by trying to control its tendency toward greed and to hold a position neither socialist nor capitalist but based on the principle of subsidiarity. In my ideal world it would be like the South in pre-World War II America when stores gave credit to shoppers without interest–the economy centered around agriculture and cities were secondary–i.e., my idealistic sympathies lie with the Southern Agrarians, especially the unrepentant ones such as Donald Davidson and Andrew Lytle. I also do not think we could return to that world without an economic crash so severe it caused a period of violent unrest, forcing people back to the land. Idealism does not always fit the real world, however.

John BurnsJan 12, 2013 @ 04:40:31

My point is this: first the Christians talk a great deal about moral absolutism. So I bring forth what was once considered a genuine moral absolute, and by the way backed up by persons like Plato and Aristotle as well as Aquinas and many others. So clearly when Dante wrote the Divine Comedy he was correct in placing the usurers in the Inferno. But now usury is acceptable. What happened to the mortal sin of usury. Many Christians, and i will assume you as well, would like to believe that the social degeneration we see all about us is due to things like homosexuaity, abortion, etc, but despite the financial nightmare we are all witnessing it does not occur to the Christians including yourself, to consider that maybe the ancients and Jesus were correct in condemning usury. I don’t think you have really studied the matter as the Jewish element is really perhaps minor. What about Cicero? Why was usury considered such a terrible sin? Here we have more evidence of crime than with homosexuality. If the latter were socially accepted I doubt it would cause any particular harm. Some persons would simply not get involved with the opposite sex. Having been long married and with four grown children I could write volumes on the evil of modern money dealings. And banks. And greed. I think the Philosophers, the Councils and the Church had a point.
You can not simply call x a mortal sin for 1500 years and then say,oh well as long as it is reasonable! And by the way Jesus talks here about talents and so on and the Jews said this and so on . . . here is the real solution:
Marguerite Porete

from the Prologue to The Mirror of Simple Souls

Theologians and other clerks,
you won’t understand this book
–however bright your wits–
if you do not meet it humbly,
and in this way Love and Faith
make you surmount Reason:
they are the mistresses of Reason’s house.

Reason herself proclaims to us
in the thirteenth chapter
of this book, unashamed,
that Love and Faith make her live:
she never frees herself from them–
they have sovereignty over her,
and she must do obeisance.

So bring low your science
which are founded by Reason,
and put all your trust
in the sciences conferred by Love,
that are lit up by Faith–
and then you’ll understand this book,
which by Love makes the soul live.

At some point one has to let go of authority as provided in the world by institutions and find the truth oneself. Just consider at one time in the past a guy like you would have been considered an heretic and denied a Christian burial. As regards Hinduism and Sankara, in the Orient the people who accept dogma are considered to be on a low level. They do the rituals and get some merit. But those that can seek the Truth or God or Realization are highly regarded. That pursuit requires great discipline and devotion. Margarite Porete was such a person and was burnt at the stake in 1309 so it can be risky.

John BurnsJan 12, 2013 @ 05:25:54

Sorry–one last comment. Your job almost certainly depends on usury. Without student loans the enrollment at your university would probably drop precipitously, especially at this time. The students are borrowing money at one of those “reasonable” rates. Many will not find jobs when they graduate. They will enter into debt slavery. Work at Walmart or the like–if lucky. Live at home if their parents still have one with room enough. Hasn’t it occurred to the professors at your university what is going on? It would cause me some sleepless night knowing that these young people are becoming indentured servants. And I wish i could remember the well written article and its author who wrote about how this whole thing was re-vamped recently in a way that favored the banks. Not the students. Financial vampirism. Meanwhile back at the ranch the elite are getting richer. They,not the students, are getting loans from the Fed at .5% interest, essentially at no interest. Which they can turn around & loan to students, take no risk and make a lot of money! Presumably the professors have some affection for the students. What are they doing about this? This is why I think Christianity is virtually dead as a spiritual path. It has lost its teeth over the centuries. God has moved on. All that is left is structures. The Vatican bank i am sure has done very well over the years. The Pope recently spoke mildly of child pornography. In England it is now puerphilia. We have entered a New Age of enlightenment with usury and puerphilia which have a lot in common if you think about it. At one period you are in the sex trade; at another you support people with your student loans. The businesses in university towns make a lot of money from rent and so forth . . . From around 18 to 25 these young people are tricked into large indebtedness–the academic industry. During this time they may well get into the pharmaceutical industry and take drugs for depression. By the time they are 30 or so with worsening health they will help drive the USA even lower on the scale of advanced nations. Given all the mixed signals provided by the media they will go along with the next dangerous government scheme and die much younger than their grandparents. Really a complete disaster, a true cataclysm would be salvation. Interesting that a professor from a prestige university is head of the Federal Reserve. And, just to add symbolic value, a Jew. And we are the Canaanites they were allowed to destroy by usury! We should have been more careful about the stories we told ourselves as they programmed the subconscious which assumed we wanted them to come true! And they have to our great dismay.

John BurnsJan 12, 2013 @ 19:29:17

You could say that I am merely expanding on your theme and not sparing/neglecting the non-fundamentalists either!!

Upon reflection I believe the following is true for you:

1. In your opinion usury was considered a mortal sin due to a failure to
appreciate the meaning of Jesus’ parable of the Talents and perhaps some Jewish influence. Though Aquinas was a great philosopher and theologian, and one you respect, his argument against usury is mistaken. Usury, provided the interest is REASONABLE, is just fine.
2. By contrast, homosexuality is self evidently wrong. Off hand I can not think of anywhere in the New Testament Jesus comments on this perversion but at least the Old Testament does. It may be true that early societies, the aboriginal ones, regarded homosexuals as an asset as their childlessness left them free to assist others that did have children, but they were heathens and did not know any better.
3. We simply have to ignore those Councils, Popes, theologians and so on that condemned usury.
4. Nonetheless Councils carry a great deal of weight.
5. Abortions are evil as they always result in the death of innocent persons, whereas just wars are not evil although they often entail that deaths of thousands or even millions of children and other innocent persons.
6. Sins of the body are the worst generally. These involve the abuse of sex and its perversion. These impact the family and society in a way which money, banking & war do not. Therefore, it would seem to follow that the statement “Money is the root of all evil was left in the Bible by oversight or a serious mistake. It ought to have been at least modified to Money is the root of some evils though not the worst.
7. As long as a Christian follows whatever the current Church says is the case, his soul is in good condition; that is, when usury was bad, he needed to avoid it; now that it is deemed good, he can do it with a clear conscience. The same for abortion should some day it be determined that the fetus is not a person until a certain high technological devise buzzes. Apparently Heaven is able to sort out the real from the apparent sin so that if a usurer was denied absolution in the 13th century because he would not return the interest he took, when he died he was assured a better fate. One can imagine the same applied to homosexuality and many other sins.
8. It is my impression that the Pope is no longer in favor of capital punishment . . . but I believe you are. Does that make you a sinner or is the Pope wrong? It is not clear how all these things get decided by the average Christian.
9. Finally those sins which apply to youth, e.g. lust for example, have always tended to receive far more attention than those that apply to mature, wealthy and powerful adults. Someone unfamiliar with the West and Christianity might conclude that the Church played up to the latter persons and focused on the former for reasons of self interest. Currently the evils that attach themselves to women especialy such as abortion and prostitution seem to attract far more attention than say avarice which is more a sin of the mature man. Also the ordination of women seems to be a big drawer. I wonder if sins that befall the weak and impoverished are more evil or if some other factor is at work.

Obviously this is not a definitive summation. Since you are a professor of philosophy as well as a member of the Anglican Catholic Church it seems to me that you have an extra responsibility to both set an example and be prepared to answer criticisms directed at Christianity. Your failure to provide a refutation of Aquinas’ argument against usury was disappointing as was your attempt to make Jesus a friend of the bankers! The fact that you seem to regard the long list of great thinkers who opposed usury as of little importance was also a let down. I believe there are many inconsistencies in your presentation of your faith. Your rather frequent attacks on homosexuals needs to be far more well done or dropped entirely as you are merely appealing to authority which is pretty obscure in my opinion. Was the British treatment of Alan Turning really charitable?
As I have said before Christians need to give their religion a really thorough house cleaning–it is long overdue. Or they can watch their religion dwindle out of existence.

I don’t think Christianity will dwindle out of existence outside the West. It is growing rapidly in Africa, which is why African missionaries now consider the United States and Western Europe to be mission fields.

No, I do not consider sins of the body or flesh worse than other sins. Jealously, envy, hatred, strife, and greed are all more serious sins than sexual sin. Read your Dante–he understood this.

No Catholic body today follows every canon of the Councils. It is the teaching office of the Church, the bishops (and my church as a House of Laity as well) that passes on the central teachings of the Apostolic, Catholic faith. The sexual sins you mention, to us, are known to be sinful through the natural law–don’t lecture me on the “naturalistic fallacy”–just because Hume and G. E. Moore claimed that is a fallacy does not make it so. No society other than ours has authorized homosexual marriage. All human societies, even those that tolerated homosexuality, were more negative toward it than, say, the dialogues of Plato suggest. Good research has shown that male homosexuals have an average of 100-200 sex partners, which is one reason for the high rate of STDs in homosexual males. That is also lust out of control. The instability of most homosexual relationships (only lesbians sometimes have stable relationships) cannot be a good thing for any children adopted. Now I doubt that legalizing gay marriage will destroy society since homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population—most relationships–and marriages–will remain heterosexual. That does not imply that homosexual practice is in accord with the natural order. Personally, I believe that although homosexual practice is wrong, a stable homosexual couple who lives an overall decent life has a better chance of salvation that a heterosexual Christian who constantly envies his neighbor’s wife and property. As long as they did not parade it and did not affirm its moral rightness, I would have no problem with a homosexual couple being members of my church (we had a couple who attended for a time). Sins of the flesh are far less serious than most other sins.

My own church accepts that capital punishment is permitted, but it is not required. That is, if it is shown that innocent people have been killed and capital punishment is banned, we would not have a problem with that either. For know psychopaths who commit brutal murders the death penalty is a fitting crime–psychopaths are damaged beyond any possibility of repair. I detest war–I saw Das Boot the other day, and every time I think of the horror of war, I move closer to pacifism. I’m not there yet, but closer to that position than before.

On another subject entirely, it is also irrational to deny the Holocaust–the traditional numbers, based on careful German records, suggest that almost six million Jews (I think 5.8 million plus a few thousand is the official figure) were killed in Hitler’s empire. Now of course if there is evidence that fewer people were killed at a specific camp than less accurate records show, then a person who has good evidence for such a claim should not be labeled anti-semitic. I do not care for the stereotype of Jews being greedy–they became bankers because in Christian countries all other professions were forbidden to Jews. As far as the Rothchild’s, their influence over the banking system waned in the 20th century and does not have the dominance that it had in nineteenth century Britain. I dislike Zionism, as did most Jews before Israel was founded–there are many Jews today who detest Zionism. Yes, the United States has an unbalanced policy in favor of Israel. Yes, the radical left wing politics of part of the Jewish community has harmed the country–but they also had a lot of help from non-Jews. Jews are not a monolithic group, and Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews hold radically different beliefs. I see no justification for placing Jews in a special class of greedy people–that seems to be characteristic of all people–and Arabs and Christians in the Middle East have also revealed their own greed, as the Antiochian Orthodox Church patriarch did when he took some new congregations into his fold (Evangelical converts to Orthodoxy) because he wanted their property. No group has a monopoly on sin or greed.

“”For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House — and where even those brought to ‘justice’ never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled ‘felons’.” –Larry Lessing commenting on the death of Aaron Swartz

Unless we begin to take note of what is going on in this nation that rarely gets reported or commented on in the main stream media by the “presstitutes”, we will end up without a nation we can even survive in. The emphasis on things like homosexuality and abortioin provide the perfect cover for far greater evils that will reduce things like the Holocaust and 9/11 to mere annoyances. And by the way both are “sacred truths” that ought not to be questioned by anyone.

“Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts US Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community’s most cherished principles.” –The official statement of Swartz’s family

Maybe after all the love of money is the root of all evil. Or perhaps we need to include power as well,but then they are in today’s world fairly convertible. The Church has always had an eye on both. For example, the Church of England declared that blacks did not have souls so that slavery was possible and great fortunes could be made. Without slavery the South might never have come about. I think educated Americans need to dig deeply and get all the truth about what is going on. There is a certain automatic enpowerment simply from knowing the truth. Of course some love the shadows on the walls and their chains.

At what age does one become aware that scholars also lie? I suppose step one would be to realize that journalists are often paid to deceive. Since we can not personally verify much of what passes for knowledge, truth, and facts we are left taking the word of someone or other–an expert!
In the meantime films like “Lincoln” or “Schindler’s List” make powerful impressions on people. Even the most dedicated film maker could not make a film about Lincoln that was not misleading–and anyway who would finance a film that cut closer to the truth? E.g. That Lincoln purchased property in Council Bluff, Iowa before he was president, and that after becoming president he signed a bill making the Union Pacific possible and needing his land in Iowa. Or that Lincoln had no particular fondness for blacks.
I seriously doubt that 5.8 Jews died in WWII, Here is an interesting quote about the Holocaust:
“Heschel[Suzanne] ignores the fact that her traditional Holocaust story is not only a feeble ideology that cannot be substantiated with physical/forensic evidence, but also, much of it can be shown to be false. Consider this. In December 2009, one of the widely recognized authorities on the Auschwitz concentration camp, Robert Jan van Pelt, admitted that: “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Auschwitz extermination story] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove…” Professor van Pelt added this most telling statement: “We in the future—remembering the Holocaust—will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness accounts” –Paul Grubach
What is wrong about the Holocaust is that it has displaced even greater tragedies such as the political famine of the Ukraine (where perhaps 8 million died and where there is physical evidence) or the even greater one in Chna in 1959! It has become a great propaganda tool justifying the theft of Palestine and all sorts of murderous actions.
But what has all this to do with Christianity? Well, like all religions it has fallen down badly and rarely receives the kind of critique that would bring it back to spiritual heights. One of the principle activities of institutions is the falsification of matters deemed too dangerous or explosive for persons to know. For example, we have Kennedy’s lone assassin, the 9/11 report, the Holocaust and how evil the Nazis were and how brave and good the allies were. The list is as long as we want it to be.
Now the USA was founded on an impossibility that it would require vigilant and well informed citizens . . . Christianity has the statement “Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.” But I think people are far more likely to believe that it is the truth which hurts–and they will postpone dealing with it as a result.
Currently we have this war against Muslims based almost entirely on lies and deceptions . . . that two airplanes brough down three gigantic buildings just as though it were planned demolition, that WMD exist wherever we want to use up our bombs, etc, necessitating a monstrous sized military budget . . , all this with Congress packed with Christians and a Christian president! The good Catholic Ryan certainly does not want to get involved with the truth nor for that matter does Vice-President Biden. One would almost think that the persons in high places operate according to a different morality and of course receive support for this from prominent ministers like Billy Graham and bishops and cardinals though I realize that sounds a lot like conspiracy theory.

You have a point that many genocides have been overlooked with the Holocaust getting more press. 1.5 million Armenians, 15 million Soviet citizens, 45 million Chinese citizens, and 1 million Cambodian citizens–all murdered at the hands of their governments. Little is said about these massacres by the elite media–the Left tends to downplay the sins of Communists.

John Kennedy may have been killed by a mafia hit in response to Robert Kennedy’s attacks on the mafia through the Justice Department. I don’t know whether this is the case or whether Oswald acted alone, but if he didn’t, the mafia hit theory makes the most sense to me.

Dubya was a hypocrite when it came to his support of war. It is a shame “Christians” supported the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“The early biblical narratives can be read as a continuous attack on the widespread sexual deviance that challenged and often seduced the Israelites, whose fallings away Scripture scrupulously records. (p. 82). What crime was so great that it provoked God to destroy mankind, except for Noah and his family, with a flood? According to the most ancient understanding of the biblical story found in rabbinic sources, it was the violation of the natural order of sexual life (p. 83). God is long-suffering of all manner of crime, save sexual immorality. (p. 85)”–The Sexual Subversion of America, Part 1 of 2 http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/the-sexual-subversion-of-america-part-1-of-2/
Interesting, to say the least. And since a large percentage of American Christians now identify with the Jews in one way or another, it makes sense that sexuality is being highlighted. The above mentioned article is well worth the read.
The best measure of a nation is how the men treat the women (& children). By that method the USA is still not quite as bad as Great Britain . . . but catching up. Pornography is especially evil because it exploits women who then become addicts, commit suicide or go off the deep end. Currently Obama whose “ethics” are Oriental is exploiting Sandy Hook and whatever happened there to some children? or was it simply a mock terrorist event that got a bit out of hand? Meanwhile, his DOJ has scored another young man, Aaron Swartz! When will corruption in America reach the satiation point?
When Empires decline it is similar to an avalanche. It can not be stopped and happens automatically. Neither can it be prevented as decline is built into the affair from the beginning.